Turkish President Erdogan warns, 'Turkiye might enter Israel to help Palestinians'

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL go peddle your conspiracy elsewhere.



Source: Six Day War

You claimed Israel attacked non Arab Countries like Turkey as for the 67 war that was a strike BEFORE the Arabs attacked Israel.

 

[Zincwarrior]

well, i think Turkey needs an official warning from NATO..
what do you all think about it?

Turkey is a NATO member. Israel is not.

How can that be? Turkey is a NATO member and all members must come to its aid if attacked.

If attacked. If Turkey attacks someone else, they are on their own.
Having said that, this looks like bluster for internal political purposes.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You claimed Israel attacked non Arab Countries like Turkey as for the 67 war that was a strike BEFORE the Arabs attacked Israel.

Please just be honest, why do so many here resort to dishonesty so readily? I made no mention of Arab or non-Arab, you imagined that.

You said "Why would Israel attack Turkey if Turkey hadn't attacked them?" and so you've now answered your own question, Israel could make a PREEMPTIVE strike, it attacked Egypt when Egypt hadn't attacked Israel.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Please just be honest, why do so many here resort to dishonesty so readily? I made no mention of Arab or non-Arab, you imagined that.

You said "Why would Israel attack Turkey if Turkey hadn't attacked them?" and so you've now answered your own question, Israel could make a PREEMPTIVE strike, it attacked Egypt when Egypt hadn't attacked Israel.

Not even close to the same situation you retard.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Not even close to the same situation you retard.

More dishonesty, I never said 1967 was close to the "same situation". I said Israel has attacked other states BEFORE those states attacked Israel and I am correct. There are various way to react to this, 1. Admit you were wrong, or 2. Throw a temper tantrum, clearly with all your military training, option 2. was your go to.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

More dishonesty, I never said 1967 was close to the "same situation". I said Israel has attacked other states BEFORE those states attacked Israel and I am correct. There are various way to react to this, 1. Admit you were wrong, or 2. Throw a temper tantrum.

LOL you are an idiot. Why would I agree your ridiculous conspiracy theory was right?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

LOL you are an idiot. Why would I agree your ridiculous conspiracy theory was right?

Understood, facts do not matter in your world.

 

[boevans]

How can that be? Turkey is a NATO member and all members must come to its aid if attacked.

The US will defend Israel, so Turkey will face NATO as it comes to the Americans' aid.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The US will defend Israel, so Turkey will face NATO as it comes to the Americans' aid.

You might be right, but I think at that stage the US would wake up and realize that Israel has become too much trouble, it would be better for the US to simply ditch Israel, not worth all the trouble, provides exactly zero to the people of the United States.

 

[GavanPeacefan]

If any official warnings are to be issued then issue them to Israel.

he did. in public.

 

[toomuchtime_]

well, i think Turkey needs an official warning from NATO..
what do you all think about it?

Erdogan is a nut job, and there really isn't anything else to say about his idiocies.

 

[toomuchtime_]

LOL go peddle your conspiracy elsewhere.



Source: Six Day War

Clearly, the article got it wrong. Egypt had already committed an act of war by moving war ships to block the Strait of Tiran through which Israel got 90% of its oil in those days, if Israel had let that stand, it would have destroyed the country, so if Egypt did not back down Israel would have no choice but to invade to end the blockade.
LBJ, who was US President at the time, sent three military missions to the area to determine what might happen if Israel did invade, and all three told him Israel would prevail. He tried to persuade Nasser to end the blockade, but Egypt was a Soviet client state at the time, and the Soviets assured Nasser the anti-aircraft defenses they had installed on the border would stop Israel from attacking, and the rest is history. The point being Egypt started the war by blocking the Strait of Tiran so while the Israeli response might have been shocking to many, it was in no sense preemptive.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Clearly, the article got it wrong. Egypt had already committed an act of war by moving war ships to block the Strait of Tiran through which Israel got 90% of its oil in those days, if Israel had let that stand, it would have destroyed the country, so if Egypt did not back down Israel would have no choice but to invade to end the blockade.
LBJ, who was US President at the time, sent three military missions to the area to determine what might happen if Israel did invade, and all three told him Israel would prevail. He tried to persuade Nasser to end the blockade, but Egypt was a Soviet client state at the time, and the Soviets assured Nasser the anti-aircraft defenses they had installed on the border would stop Israel from attacking, and the rest is history. The point being Egypt started the war by blocking the Strait of Tiran so while the Israeli response might have been shocking to many, it was in no sense preemptive.

It was Israel that chose to describe the blockade as an "act of war". Israel need only raise this in the UN and get a resolution to force Egypt to comply, that's typically how international disputes are resolved in the modern world. Nothing in the UN charter permits a military attack on a sovereign nation except in response to an armed attack, what Israel did with Egypt was against international law.

I do wish more people here would make the effort to read the UN Charter, it really would make some of these conversations easier.

Also note:

Later in life, General Rikhye sought to downplay the importance that Israel attached to keeping that waterway open, saying that Israel's accusation in 1967 of a blockade was "questionable" given that an Israeli-flagged ship had not passed through the straits in two years, and that "The U.A.R. [Egyptian] navy had searched a couple of ships after the establishment of the blockade and thereafter relaxed its implementation".

So there we are, Israel sought war, that's all it's done since the day it was "created", it wants war now too with Iran, that's all they are good at, starting armed conflicts and killing thousands of people, we should have nothing to do with such a foul and evil racist regime, not if we stand by the principles we so often tell everyone about.

 

[toomuchtime_]

It was Israel that chose to describe the blockade as an "act of war". Israel need only raise this in the UN and get a resolution to force Egypt to comply, that's typically how international disputes are resolved in the modern world. Nothing in the UN charter permits a military attack on a sovereign nation except in response to an armed attack, what Israel did with Egypt was against international law.

I do wish more people here would make the effort to read the UN Charter, it really would make some of these conversations easier.

Egypt used warships to block an international waterway to prevent oil shipments to Israel which is clearly an act of war, and the UN had no power to force Egypt to back down. The issue was time sensitive and after the US was unable to get Egypt, then a USSR client state, to reconsider Israel has no option but to take military action to end the blockade.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Egypt used warships to block an international waterway to prevent oil shipments to Israel which is clearly an act of war, and the UN had no power to force Egypt to back down.

The UN had the power, Israel chose not to use that route, show me, did Israel every request a resolution? was a vote ever held by the security council to punish Egypt? No, because Israel chose not to take that route, every UN member can request an emergency meeting and vote at short notice (God knows, the Palestinians have done this enough times).

The issue was time sensitive and after the US was unable to get Egypt, then a USSR client state, to reconsider Israel has no option but to take military action to end the blockade.

Nevertheless an armed attack on a sovereign nation is AGAINST international law UNLESS its a response to a prior armed attack, only military force can justify military force OR a UN resolution that authorizes military force.

So cut it dice it as you wish, the facts are Israel sought war and violated international law. Here READ what the victors of WW2 expected from the UN, the reasons it was created:

Now, specifically:

Israel is a lying, monstrous beast, it signed the charter, agreed to these rules and stipulation and like the serpent of old has nothing but deceitful intentions.

 

[rylah]

You might be right, but I think at that stage the US would wake up and realize that Israel has become too much trouble, it would be better for the US to simply ditch Israel, not worth all the trouble, provides exactly zero to the people of the United States.

When someone dismisses something outright
is only to diminish the actual impact from a position.

There're non-Jewish Americans who think America deserves
someone like Netanyahu, certain values are deeper than politics.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Egypt attacked Israel with the blockade and no the UN does not resolve conflicts with resolutions never has never will.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Egypt attacked Israel with the blockade and no the UN does not resolve conflicts with resolutions never has never will.

That statement is true except for the following parts:

• Egypt attacked Israel.
• Egypt's blockade had any impact at all.
• UN doesn't resolve conflicts and never has.

Just correct those three errors and repost please.

 

[rylah]

Egypt attacked Israel with the blockade and no the UN does not resolve conflicts with resolutions never has never will.

And Erdogan is a Nasser kind of psychopath,
with an early Biden problem.

If they follow the threat,
it's open WW3 declaration,
and Israel has nothing to lose.

But then again he's prob. gonna merely
continue providing ammunition used for Gaza...

 

[Shusha]

Article 2

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Emphasis mine. The threat of force is a violation of UN Charter. By making this threat, Turkey is already the aggressor.